The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Automated weaning and spontaneous breathing trial systems versus non‐automated weaning strategies for discontinuation time in invasively ventilated postoperative adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008639.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karen EA Burns, Francois Lellouche, Martin R Lessard, Jan O Friedrich |
| Abstract |
Automated systems use closed-loop control to enable ventilators to perform basic and advanced functions while supporting respiration. Selected automated systems can now not only measure selected respiratory variables and adapt ventilator output to individual patient needs by operationalizing predetermined algorithms but also automate the conduct of spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 254 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 47 | 18% |
| Researcher | 25 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 49 | 19% |
| Unknown | 83 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 39 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Psychology | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 4% |
| Unknown | 93 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2014.
All research outputs
#21,159,594
of 25,990,981 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12,268
of 13,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,292
of 332,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#216
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,990,981 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.